Extracts from the Sept-Oct 2002 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

17. The new Nuclear Debate

With the consultation on the PIU energy review underway, we review the key inputs on nuclear power so far.

Immediately following the publication of the PIU review, British Energy and BNFL announced a joint feasability study into the AP1000 reactors as a possible replacement for the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors, when they began to be retired after 2010 (see Renew 137/138). But that was widely seen as a kite flying exercise - no funding provisions yet exist.

However, shortly after, breaking ranks with the ‘keep the option open position’ established by the PIU (see Renew 137) the government's chief scientific adviser, Prof. David King, said that the UK's nuclear building programme should be revived, to help meet international targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This created quite a stir.

As we reported in Renew 135/6 last year King set up a review group within the DTI to look at energy R&D, which fed into the PIU review. This covered renewables and recommended expanded funding. But clearly King feels that renewables on their own would fail to meet the UK’s targets. The DTI review also recommended more support for work on nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning, as well as on fusion, but it stopped short of backing nuclear expansion.

Evidently until recently, King has been a sceptic of nuclear fission power - sharing concerns with environmental groups about the disposal and storage of radioactive waste. But now he says "We have to deal with (nuclear waste) whether or not we continue with nuclear power", a line which is often now repeated, sometimes with the additional twist that the new nuclear plants being developed will produce much less waste Coming out clearly in favour of nuclear power, at least in the interim, he concluded "Those who are opposed to nuclear power on environmental grounds have to weigh up this difficult balance... are we going to continue with global warming or are we going to mitigate it." If cutting emissions were the priority, he added, then we needed to continue "our dependence on nuclear power at least in the intermediate phase, at least until renewables come on stream substantially". Given that the nuclear contribution was currently declining as old plants were retired that implied that new ones were needed and apparently King feels that the government should kick-start a new nuclear power station building programme- a move he described as politically difficult but environmentally necessary.

His comments were discussed in the House of Commons, with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, being asked whether she agreed with Professor David King that ‘the UK needs to reinvest in nuclear power, with the backing of a substantial Government financial package’? She responded that the PIU review ‘recommended that the Government keep an open mind on the future use of nuclear power. As chief scientific adviser, Professor King is of course free to make his views known’. She added ‘It is too early for the Government to have reached a view on all the review’s many recommendations, but we will consider them very carefully.’

In response to a question from Joan Ruddock MP on the in balance in support for nuclear and renewables she commented ‘the Government are committed to making much more substantial investment in renewables than in the past and to investment in energy conservation. We fully recognise the enormous contribution that those steps can make towards helping us to meet our climate change obligations. My Department has instigated a thorough consultation on the handling and treatment of radioactive waste. The Government are alive to the importance of these difficult and different issues and keen to stimulate public consultation and debate.’

But, unsurprisingly, Dr.Jack Cunningham, whose constituency includes Sellafield, tried to push her further: ‘however big the renewables programme- I support a big programme- we will not be able to provide the electricity for an advanced industrial economy without a contribution from nuclear power’

She responded by reiterating that ‘the review suggests that we should keep open the option on nuclear power, although it did not make concrete proposals about the steps that we should take. The Government are carefully considering the recommendations in the review and will make proposals for consultation in the near future.’

Michael Meacher was a little more forthcoming when he answer similar questions ‘the PIU energy report does not foreclose on the nuclear option. It does not propose new nuclear build, but, equally, it does not foreclose on the nuclear option in the interests of the nation’s security of supply. There is no presumption on the part of the Government either for or against nuclear power. Significantly, however, the White Paper states that even if no new nuclear plant were built, and even if reprocessing were to come to an end with the phasing out of the Magnox reactors, there would still be 500,000 tonnes of radioactive waste in this country that would have to be managed over the next 100 years’. (The new White Paper on Nuclear Cleanup puts the liability at £48bn!)

Pro and anti nuclear views were also traded as MPs debated the PIU report in March (see Reviews) and again in June (see Renew 140).

Outside Parliament, local and national anti nuclear groups were unanimous in their opposition. Jim Duffy Stop Hinkley in Somerset, commented ‘it has been a long time since people came out on the street to protest about nuclear power. But I think people would do that if new stations were built.’ Although there is as yet no sign of funding, Hinkley has been suggested as one of the possible sites for the first of the proposed new AP100 reactors, along with Hunterston in Ayrshire. Friends of the Earth said ‘we are totally opposed to nuclear power stations. They are uneconomic, unsafe and unpopular. We should be investing instead in renewable and safe green technology.’

The UK Natural Environment Research Council sponsored a series of debates on the ‘spiked’ web site, including one on the future of energy, which got quite lively, with a strong pro-nuke ‘Contrarian’ presence:

www.spiked-online.com/sections/science/debates/energy/

But the last word must go to the DTI which in a report, leaked to New Scientist (July 3) said ‘Public acceptance may not be the intractable problem it is perceived as being, particularly if the alternatives are considered less palatable’.

US Nuclear Push

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has earmarked $3m in the 2002 fiscal year to streamline applications to build new nuclear power plants. In addition it has unveiled a new plan to match individual utility investments up to $48.5m over the next two years to license new sites for nuclear plants. "This is a critical step in paving the way for deploying more nuclear power in the United States", Energy Secretary Abraham said. Two unnamed "major nuclear utilities" are considering sites in Idaho, South Carolina and Ohio to build new nuclear plants. Exelon wants to take up options on a site it already has at Clinton near Chicago. Bush has also released $330m of $2 bn in funding it has budgeted over the next 10 years to encourage utilities to develop new ‘clean coal’ technology. Coal and nuclear are both key components of Bush’s energy policy.

Public want green energy not nuclear

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has published the results of surveys that reveal the British public’s views on energy issues. The research, carried out by BMRB, shows that nuclear power stations are the least popular means of generating electricity, with 68% of those interviewed saying they did not think that nuclear power stations should be built in Britain in the next ten years. Nearly four in ten of those interviewed (38%) thought that coal-fired power stations should not be built in Britain in the next ten years. The surveys were carried out as part of the RSPB’s climate change campaign, with the aim of discovering more about the public’s views on energy issues and to find out how much people know about the links between fossil fuels and climate change. Almost all of the interviewees had heard of climate change and three quarters of them, 74% were concerned about its effects. Over half the public interviewed (55%) had heard the term ‘renewable energy’, and there was high approval for solar, wave / tidal, and hydro-electric power.

Interestingly, only 3% of the interviewees were opposed to building on-shore wind farms in Britain. Power stations harnessing some form of renewable energy proved to be far more popular than those using fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

John Lanchbery, the RSPB Climate Change Policy Officer said: "The Government is facing some important and long term challenges as to how we meet our future energy needs. The RSPB is firmly behind renewable energy, which is environmentally friendly and socially sustainable. This polling shows that the British public is behind us on this."

For more info contact Cherry Farrow, RSPB London Office 7828 4331 or via the Press Office 01767 680551